Word is getting out ...

[Roadrider48]

I've been filming on the roads for 3 or 4 years now. I've never had anyone object to being filmed and it's pretty obvious I've got cameras.

If you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. If you drive like an idiot, well you might well see your self online.

Gaz, I have seen you on YouTube and you are a very clued up, sensible cyclist, with years of good reputation behind you, No dispute there! But the first line of stowies post is correct and I agree with that. #119.

 

[Roadrider48]

Whatever way you see it, vulnerable road users are sick to the back teeth of being driven at, crashed into, abused, close-passed, tail-gated and generally endangered on the road by drivers that are complete twunts. And you seem to want cammers to back off filming said twunts because of their 'privacy'?

I, like a good number of very experienced cyclists on here, couldn't give a rat's @rse about the 'privacy' of some nobber in a car. A vulnerable road user's safety trumps their privacy every time. And as a responsible driver, I don't give a toss either about the cyclist at the lights with the camera filming because, surprise to you as it may be, I am highly unlikely to ever be a subject of one of their films. And, perish the though that I ever were to be the main feature, my acute embarrassment over 15 mins of online fame is nothing to the possible harm I could have inflicted on a human being due to my driving.

The anti-cammer voice out there is nothing to do with privacy, or confrontation, it's more to do with the majority of bad drivers not wanting to be made responsible for their actions. And I don't know about you, but I find the very idea that a driver with 1 ton + of high speed metal under their control wanting to be absolved of responsibility for their actions wholly abysmal.

So drivers are automatically guilty unless proven otherwise by the means of your camera? And why would I be surprised at the supremacy of your driving. I am sure you're not constantly "driving at" cyclists as you put it. You are exactly the kind of cyclist that blames cars for everything and you take no responsibility for bad cycling habits, all in the name of vulnerability. Irrespective of circumstance or evidence! I advocate equal rights for all parties, cars and cyclists alike. And don't bother to misquote me either. I am well aware that a bike is more vulnerable than a car. But there is blame on both sides for most incidents, in equal proportion.

 

[stowie]

So drivers are automatically guilty unless proven otherwise by the means of your camera? And why would I be surprised at the supremacy of your driving. I am sure you're not constantly "driving at" cyclists as you put it. You are exactly the kind of cyclist that blames cars for everything and you take no responsibility for bad cycling habits, all in the name of vulnerability. Irrespective of circumstance or evidence! I advocate equal rights for all parties, cars and cyclists alike.

So here is one of the problems with your "equal rights". Walking is different to cycling which is different to driving a car. Each brings its own external risk to the environment and others. Pedestrians bring very little danger to others, cyclists a bit more danger, a car drivers a lot more. Hence the reason why I need a license and insurance to drive and my car needs an MOT - all items deemed unnecessary for walking and cycling. The fact that the risk brought to others by each activity is so vastly different makes the "equal rights and responsibilities" argument tosh.

 

[Roadrider48]

So here is one of the problems with your "equal rights". Walking is different to cycling which is different to driving a car. Each brings its own external risk to the environment and others. Pedestrians bring very little danger to others, cyclists a bit more danger, a car drivers a lot more. Hence the reason why I need a license and insurance to drive and my car needs an MOT - all items deemed unnecessary for walking and cycling. The fact that the risk brought to others by each activity is so vastly different makes the "equal rights and responsibilities" argument tosh.

In the name of argument "Tosh", let's say for example a cyclist crashes into a pedestrian and causes such injury that they are unable to work for a short while and would have required hospital treatment. Where would it be possible for the injured pedestrian to claim their costs and expenses from? The cyclists insurance?, no, that wouldn't be possible, because cyclists have no need for such a triviality as insurance, surely? I am waiting for you to quote the car to bike accident ratios and then say we don't ever injure anybody. Now that is Tosh, as you say. But I already know that you won't see any other side to this except the side of the cyclist. But carry on all the same.

 

[stowie]

In the name of argument "Tosh", let's say for example a cyclist crashes into a pedestrian and causes such injury that they are unable to work for a short while and would have required hospital treatment. Where would it be possible for the injured pedestrian to claim their costs and expenses from? The cyclists insurance?, no, that wouldn't be possible, because cyclists have no need for such a triviality as insurance, surely? I am waiting for you to quote the car to bike accident ratios and then say we don't ever injure anybody. Now that is Tosh, as you say. But I already know that you won't see any other side to this except the side of the cyclist. But carry on all the same.

Cyclists do injure people. But, as I expect you already know, the numbers are significantly below those injured by motorised transport so the risk isn't deemed large enough to warrant compulsory insurance. There are loads of activities where risk to others is increased a small amount that don't warrant insurance so cycling is hardly an exception.

If a cyclist injured a pedestrian, it might be that the cyclist has insurance (many have), or a claim for damages could be brought directly against the cyclist themselves in the case of having no insurance, if the cyclist was deemed at fault.

I do also walk and drive you know. I also know that with each mode of transport a different level of responsibility is required based on the risk brought about by this activity. Are you saying this is not correct?

 

[classic33]

You have just shown yourself up as the original car hating cyclist. No one is obliged to promote anything they don't believe in or want to. As I've said, I cycle every day, 7 days a week. But cars will not ever yield to cycles, not in this lifetime anyway. You, nor anybody else, do not have the right to put peoples faces or plate details all over the internet. But for some weird reason, you all think that you're judge and jury. And that you can carry out some kind of kangaroo court at the kerbside.

If "kangaroo courts" were held at the roadside, there'd be fewer drivers on the road.
You tell me where it states that one person cannot put peoples faces or plate details on the internet. The internet has just become another means of getting the same information out there. Nowt else.

 

[ComedyPilot]

So drivers are automatically guilty unless proven otherwise by the means of your camera? And why would I be surprised at the supremacy of your driving. I am sure you're not constantly "driving at" cyclists as you put it. You are exactly the kind of cyclist that blames cars for everything and you take no responsibility for bad cycling habits, all in the name of vulnerability.*1 Irrespective of circumstance or evidence! I advocate equal rights for all parties, cars and cyclists alike. And don't bother to misquote me either. I am well aware that a bike is more vulnerable than a car. But there is blame on both sides for most incidents, in equal proportion*2.

*1 - No I am not - and anyone that knows me on here and out in the 'real' world will tell you I am just as likely to call a bad cyclist a twunt as I would call the same to a bad driver. I for one applaud @gaz and his silly cyclists channel, because we can all learn from it.

*2 - Afraid I disagree with you on this one, we have a personal responsibility for our own actions in that they do not endanger others (and ourselves if we have any sense of self preservation), but equal responsibility for 'most' incidents? Come on...........

I am sure @Crankarm of this parish, @gaz , @Black Country Ste and @Leodis could tell you a thing or two about whether their incidents had equal 'blame' levels.

I suppose if we looked at my worst incidents, then yes, it was my fault a lorry overtook me and pulled back in before completing the move forcing me to take to the verge so I didn't go under the trailer's rear wheels. It was my fault a bus driver passing me at 50mph decided 6" was enough room between it's nearside and my elbow. It was also my fault that at least half a dozen cars have been driving towards me on a single carriage way road and pull out to overtake cars on their side and drive AT me at 60mph+ forcing me to do the only option left - ride onto the verge (the same 1/2 mile stretch of road every time!)

 

[ComedyPilot]

In the name of argument "Tosh", let's say for example a cyclist crashes into a pedestrian and causes such injury that they are unable to work for a short while and would have required hospital treatment. Where would it be possible for the injured pedestrian to claim their costs and expenses from? The cyclists insurance?, no, that wouldn't be possible, because cyclists have no need for such a triviality as insurance, surely? I am waiting for you to quote the car to bike accident ratios and then say we don't ever injure anybody. Now that is Tosh, as you say. But I already know that you won't see any other side to this except the side of the cyclist. But carry on all the same.

I'm insured as a cyclist...are you?

 

[classic33]

@Roadrider48
Read the account given for these two & tell us where the blame lies please?
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/split-from-incident-outcome.68203/#post-1267705
&
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/hit-and-run.140959/
With regards the second the rider involved hasn't been back since.

 

[gaz]

Gaz, I have seen you on YouTube and you are a very clued up, sensible cyclist, with years of good reputation behind you, No dispute there! But the first line of stowies post is correct and I agree with that. #119.

FYI: The first line for another user is subjective to the size of their browser window. So for all I can tell you are agreeing with his words "To be fair" :P

 

[classic33]

[QUOTE 2711134, member: 30090"]What's the above got to do with anything? As far as I can see RR has stated his position quite clearly. It's others that have got come with a load of strawmans to make a point.

All very tiresome.[/quote]
Are you answering for him?
Is he incapable of answering for himself, that you feel the need to answer a question directed at someone else to answer?

 

[Jezston]

[QUOTE 2711124, member: 30090"]Irony alert, whoop, whoop.[/quote]

Eh?

 

[classic33]

[QUOTE 2711179, member: 30090"]Oh I'm sorry for voicing an opinion on a public forum.

And my opinion that I made (if you had bothered to read it) was that RR has clearly stated his position regarding cameras and filming in public. Yours and other posters various introductions of non relevant points is irksome which ultimately leads to a very tiresome discussion ad nauseum.

Me having the foresight that I have could see this so I thought I'd raise the point now rather then in a another seven pages.

So, what and how exactly is your post to RR got to do with filming people?[/quote]
Start with the simple question first.
Are you now answering for @Roadrider48?
Questions raised, by yourself, will be answered after. Or you could just read and supply his answer for him, what was put up for the person of whom the question was asked, was asked to answer!

 

[classic33]

[QUOTE 2711202, member: 30090"]No I'm not and I don't think I've ever given the impression that I have or have wanted to sometime in the future.

If you want to put off the inevitable Classic then by all means carry on.[/quote]
You answered a previous question intended for him, so it appeared that you were now fielding his answers. If you want to answer questions not aimed at you, carry on. They'll be met with the contempt they deserve.

 

[Roadrider48]

Cyclists do injure people. But, as I expect you already know, the numbers are significantly below those injured by motorised transport so the risk isn't deemed large enough to warrant compulsory insurance. There are loads of activities where risk to others is increased a small amount that don't warrant insurance so cycling is hardly an exception.

If a cyclist injured a pedestrian, it might be that the cyclist has insurance (many have), or a claim for damages could be brought directly against the cyclist themselves in the case of having no insurance, if the cyclist was deemed at fault.

I do also walk and drive you know. I also know that with each mode of transport a different level of responsibility is required based on the risk brought about by this activity. Are you saying this is not correct?

What a really weak answer!!